China's inflation problem

Producer and consumer prices are diverging - which could spark trouble in the future.

China’s economic data have long been looked upon with a hint of suspicion. Inflation data is considered to be one of the better economic indicators produced by the China’s National Bureau of Statistics, however, recent outcomes have raised some questions. The producer price index (PPI) is considered to be a relatively reliable leading indicator of the consumer price index (CPI), as upstream price pressures, including the effect of higher commodity prices and raw materials, eventually trickle down and feed through to consumer prices. History has shown that it is broadly the case for China, with the CPI and PPI moving roughly in line with each other.

However, comparing the recent inflation outcomes at the consumer and producer level suggest a wide divergence in price pressures: rising consumer prices and falling producer prices in annual terms. The PPI has trended sharply downwards over the past year, down in deflationary territory for two consecutive months in April, while consumer prices have moderated more slowly. Growth in the CPI was 3.4 per cent in April 2012, moderating from a high of 6.5 per cent in July 2011, while the PPI which measures the selling price of goods and services sold at the wholesale level fell by 0.3 per cent in annual terms down from 7.5 per cent annual growth.

To some extent, the large recent falls in the PPI relates to a base effect; previously strong monthly increases in the index in late 2010 to early 2011 would reduce the magnitude of change in the index this year. But looking at the index rather than the growth, producer prices have also been subject to deflationary pressure in monthly terms – causing the index to fall slightly in late 2011, before more recently picking up.

The moderation in the PPI also reflects slackness in the manufacturing industry, where prices in the sector have fallen in annual terms for four consecutive months to be lower by 2.2 per cent in April 2012 compared to a year ago. This is in line with the continued moderating trend in industrial production, down to below 10 per cent annual growth in April – representing the weakest growth since the 2008-09 slowdown. Meanwhile, consumer prices have been driven largely by high food prices, which accounts for around one-third of the consumer basket.

The divergence between consumer and producer prices also highlights different operating conditions for upstream and downstream manufactures. Input prices have risen significantly, suggesting that profit margins for upstream manufacturers are taking a hit. Commodity prices have remained elevated; wage pressures have intensified with minimum wages rising by around 20 per cent annually in many provinces, while exchange rate appreciation has also cut into manufacturer’s profit. Anecdotes suggest that many exporters are declining large overseas orders, given the lack of skilled workers, tight credit conditions stemming from the government’s ‘prudent monetary policy’ and uncertainty over the pace of renminbi appreciation.

On the other hand, however, downstream manufacturers, which are less vulnerable to higher input prices, appear to be experiencing an improvement in their profit margins due to the positive gap between consumer and producer price inflation. Looking at reported profits across industries, consumer-related sectors appear to be best performers. In the three months to March, profits of automobile manufacturers increased by 6.3 per cent annually, while profits in the sectors of raw chemical and chemical products fell by 23.1 per cent and even further for ferrous metal mining and processing (down 83.5 per cent).

Looking ahead, it is expected that the gap between producer and consumer prices will eventually close in the coming months on the back of an improvement in manufacturing demand and possible relaxation of government credit restrictions. As per the government’s inflation target, consumer price inflation is set to average 4 per cent in 2012, which would mean relatively strong monthly growth of around 0.4 per cent over the remainder of this year. Should this be achieved, producer prices will need to rise at a much faster pace in accordance with the consumer and producer price relationship.

Until the figures get back on track, it is not unreasonable to expect the concerns felt in many countries about the accuracy of inflation numbers might well spread to China. Trying to get representative prices for a basket of goods that reflects the experiences of the majority is increasingly hard in complex economies prompting many to question the accuracy of one of the most important economic variables.

Chinese workers assemble electronics. Photograph: Getty Images

Niloofar Rafiei is China economist at Timetric, provider of economic data visualisation and analysis.

Getty
Show Hide image

I was wrong about Help to Buy - but I'm still glad it's gone

As a mortgage journalist in 2013, I was deeply sceptical of the guarantee scheme. 

If you just read the headlines about Help to Buy, you could be under the impression that Theresa May has just axed an important scheme for first-time buyers. If you're on the left, you might conclude that she is on a mission to make life worse for ordinary working people. If you just enjoy blue-on-blue action, it's a swipe at the Chancellor she sacked, George Osborne.

Except it's none of those things. Help to Buy mortgage guarantee scheme is a policy that actually worked pretty well - despite the concerns of financial journalists including me - and has served its purpose.

When Osborne first announced Help to Buy in 2013, it was controversial. Mortgage journalists, such as I was at the time, were still mopping up news from the financial crisis. We were still writing up reports about the toxic loan books that had brought the banks crashing down. The idea of the Government promising to bail out mortgage borrowers seemed the height of recklessness.

But the Government always intended Help to Buy mortgage guarantee to act as a stimulus, not a long-term solution. From the beginning, it had an end date - 31 December 2016. The idea was to encourage big banks to start lending again.

So far, the record of Help to Buy has been pretty good. A first-time buyer in 2013 with a 5 per cent deposit had 56 mortgage products to choose from - not much when you consider some of those products would have been ridiculously expensive or would come with many strings attached. By 2016, according to Moneyfacts, first-time buyers had 271 products to choose from, nearly a five-fold increase

Over the same period, financial regulators have introduced much tougher mortgage affordability rules. First-time buyers can be expected to be interrogated about their income, their little luxuries and how they would cope if interest rates rose (contrary to our expectations in 2013, the Bank of England base rate has actually fallen). 

A criticism that still rings true, however, is that the mortgage guarantee scheme only helps boost demand for properties, while doing nothing about the lack of housing supply. Unlike its sister scheme, the Help to Buy equity loan scheme, there is no incentive for property companies to build more homes. According to FullFact, there were just 112,000 homes being built in England and Wales in 2010. By 2015, that had increased, but only to a mere 149,000.

This lack of supply helps to prop up house prices - one of the factors making it so difficult to get on the housing ladder in the first place. In July, the average house price in England was £233,000. This means a first-time buyer with a 5 per cent deposit of £11,650 would still need to be earning nearly £50,000 to meet most mortgage affordability criteria. In other words, the Help to Buy mortgage guarantee is targeted squarely at the middle class.

The Government plans to maintain the Help to Buy equity loan scheme, which is restricted to new builds, and the Help to Buy ISA, which rewards savers at a time of low interest rates. As for Help to Buy mortgage guarantee, the scheme may be dead, but so long as high street banks are offering 95 per cent mortgages, its effects are still with us.